Reassessment Based on Uncorroborated Third-Party Excel Sheets Quashed for Jurisdictional Defects 1. Core Issue: Validity of Reopening and Reliance on Digital “Dumb” Documents The dispute centered on an addition of ₹55,02,640 under Section 69A. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on an Excel sheet found during a search on a third party (M/s… Read More »
Section 148 Notice Issued by Jurisdictional AO After March 29, 2022, is Void for Lack of Jurisdiction The Issue The primary legal challenge was whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid if it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing… Read More »
Reassessment Order Quashed Due to Jurisdictional Error: JAO Notice Post-Faceless Regime Notification The Issue The core legal dispute was whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid if issued after March 29, 2022. This was the date the Ministry of Finance notified the Faceless Assessment Scheme, mandating… Read More »
ITAT Upholds CIT(A)’s Power to Remand Ex-Parte Assessment for Fresh Adjudication The Issue The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT (Appeals), who had “set aside” an ex-parte assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) did not have the jurisdiction to… Read More »
Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) Cannot Survive if the Underlying Assessment Order is Quashed The Issue The Revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty amounting to ₹1,25,53,423 imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The Revenue contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty without examining the merits of the concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. The… Read More »
Revenue Authority Failed in Duty by Ignoring Evidence of Legitimate Business Cash Deposits The Issue The primary dispute was whether cash deposits totaling ₹1,95,61,240 in the bank account of an individual who did not file a return (non-filer) should be treated as “Unexplained Money” under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Facts The… Read More »
Reassessment Order Quashed Due to Jurisdictional Error: JAO vs. Faceless AO Post-March 2022 The Issue The primary legal challenge was whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 (or preliminary order under Section 148A(d)) is valid if issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) after the mandatory faceless… Read More »
Availability of Prior Cash Withdrawals Negates Unexplained Money Addition During Demonetization The Issue Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) is justified in treating a portion of cash deposits (₹10 lakhs out of ₹15 lakhs) made during the 2016 demonetization period as unexplained income under Section 69A/68, even when the assessee demonstrated a clear trail of prior… Read More »
Unverified Third-Party Digital Evidence Insufficient to Sustain Additions for Alleged “On-Money” Payments The Issue Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) can make additions to a home buyer’s income under the head “unexplained investment” solely based on deleted-and-retrieved files from a laptop belonging to a third-party employee (of the developer), without independent corroboration or providing an opportunity… Read More »
Salary Reimbursements for Deployed Government Staff Qualify as Deductible Business Expenditure The Issue Whether the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) is entitled to claim a deduction for salaries paid to employees of the Department of Urban Estates (DUE). The Revenue challenged this, arguing that since DUE is a separate State Government department under different administrative… Read More »